Spirit Trap

When five young students move into an old unoccupied mansion an inexplicable chain of events is set into motion as a mysterious spirit clock begins to tick again. As the story unfolds, revealing each student's dark secrets, the boundary between the real world and the afterlife is no longer clear. Will they find a way to escape or will they be trapped with the spirits forever?

In London, four students have a call from the student accommodation office of the local university offering lodging in an old house. The psychic Jenny, the graphic design student Nick, and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

Spirit Trap torrent reviews

Harry W (ru) wrote: With Gia Coppola being a fresh face among the Coppola family, Palo Alto had to be seen in hope of witnessing a return to Coppola glory.The film captures the carefree lifestyle of American teenagers from the perspectives of those who try to seek people to talk their problems away and those who drink them away. The way that it focuses on the forgotten people and their alternative approach to life is not pretentious like The Fault in Our Stars (2014), it is more reminiscent of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012). Yet one of the differences is the way that the film uses interwoven title text that is styled like the kind used in films of the 1970's. The 1970's were the glory days for the Coppola family due to the international success of names such as Francis Ford Coppola and Talia Shire, and the fact that Gia Coppola's film offers a return to that. As a result, Palo Alto subtly uses the lifestyle of the contemporary youth while appealing to viewers with a sense of nostalgia to an earlier era. The way that the film focuses on multiple characters in a world which doesn't understand them particularly serves as a reminder of Francis Ford Coppola's The Outsiders (1983), a personal favourite movie of mine. Gia Coppola also captures the feeling of damaged innocence in a lonely neighbourhood of Sofia Coppola's The Virgin Suicides (1999) while characterizing the female characters as if they were the Lisbon sisters. Gia Coppola also grasps the feeling of Francis Ford Coppola's Rumble Fish (1983), so even though she refused help from her family in completing the project it is all too clear that Coppola blood runs prominently in her veins.Many people criticize Palo Alto for having a story that drifts on. In all essence, this is true for better and for worse. The story doesn't really go anywhere as the film is an exercise in style and subtle storytelling elements so it is not always the most tenaciously entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film rich with its grasp on reality. There are many characters in Palo Alto who all have a variation of relevance to the story. Though not much happens in the story, this allows the film to be genuinely more focused on them than the story itself and characterizes them through a lot of subtleties. Gia Coppola is able to keep the film moving this way, and even if its movement is a slow one there is enough style to keep the viewer engaged consistently engaged in the narrative. The screenplay is one with a lot of natural language to it, giving the cast characters that they can naturally embrace on their own to form their own creations. But there is also a sense of mystique to the language, as if the characters maintain individual wisdom that the outside world has blocked out to the point that it seems like a distant concept. The realism in this is intriguing because part of individualism is maintaining knowledge or skills that others do not, and Palo Alto reminds us what extent that can go to. As a result, the film conveys a touching, if somewhat familiar message about the uniqueness of all human beingsVisually, Palo Alto puts maximum use into the stunning scenery by capturing it with a colour scheme which is so vibrant that it is almost trippy. The cinematography uses a lot of clever techniques to capture April's isolation. Sometimes the camera slowly pans in on her while others are talking, refusing to acknowledge them. Sometimes, there are multiple characters in perspective but everyone aside from April is blurred by the lack of focus. Sometimes, the camera focuses so closely on April that it's almost as if she is the only one who exists in the world. Even when the cinematography is not focused on April, it consistently uses a lot of extensive single shots which are edited between shorter, more atmospheric angles. What's beautiful about all this is the way that Autumn Durald is able to find imagery in everything and just what that imagery means. The same way that April's isolation is conveyed by the cinematography, many other characters are determined by their surroundings. Emily lives in the room of a little girl who never grew up and she still maintains a child's desire to have everyone like her through doing what she is deemed good at while Teddy is always surrounded by paintings, drawings and books as it comments on the artistic side of him. All this is buried into the undertones of the film as none of it is explicitly stated, and that's the real beauty of it all. Also, it all unfolds against the backdrop of a musical score which gently creeps its way in to the film. Silence is frequently used to add to the reality of the situation, but the light touch of instrumental pieces is subtle enough not to feel like forced dramatization but also working to genuinely add more feeling to the film. The music works so naturally that it doesn't seem as if anything has changed when it comes in. The only time it really stands out are the sequences in which the music is cranked up to drive the scene a lot more such as when Die Antwoord's "Enter the Ninja" is used in the party sequence. Not only does this work very well, but any film with Enter the Ninja on its soundtrack is one worth listening out for.What I really admire about Palo Alto is just how it feels because the atmosphere is remarkable. Everything is so dank and melancholic that things always feel sad to some extent. As a result, whenever dramatic plot points actually occur there is no sudden shift in mood or unexpected strike that the viewer takes. In actuality, it feels natural and therefore makes the film feel genuine as if it does capture reality. There is one scene in which April walks into her room and starts talking to herself as if she is rehearsing an argument, a very brief sequence that stands because of how real it is. This scene signifies how viewers can channel the humanity of the film, and that can be credited to a combination of Gia Coppola's tenacious direction and the work of a talented cast.Emma Roberts gives her greatest performance to date in Palo Alto. Recognized in Hollywood largely as the daughter of Academy Award winner Julia Roberts, Emma Roberts made me forget everything about her in Palo Alto as both her and the film strip away everything that is Hollywood. Viewers are left with a character by the name of April, a girl much like one that countless viewers have known in their life without having truly known who they are beneath what we choose to believe about them. You can tell through her facial expressions and the way the camera emphasizes them that there is a world of confusion beneath the character, and Emma Roberts captures that with natural articulation in her line delivery and physical energy. Emma Roberts really makes Palo Alto a strong front for her own performance talents, and her natural charms are undeniable.Emily is an interesting character. At first the viewer is presented with the idea that she is just another one of the flock, another character following on with popular social trends. But as the film goes on, the viewer is able to gain an understanding of the subtle implications regarding how she genuinely feels lonely and how the world has grown to see her as little more than a sex object. She has to use that status in hopes of getting close to people, and the sentiment is sad. It is a sublte theme, and the efforts of Zoe Levin convey this really well. Zoe Levin delivers the lines of the character with a gentle spirit to her, and you can tell everything she needs to say through the scenes where she says nothing and is silent. Through little details, Zoe Levin is able to convey Emily's emotional state very well be they through how her eyes move or the slight changes in voice tone. Zoe Levin's understated talents match the subtle nature of Palo Alto very easily.Jack Kilmer is also an interesting face to see. With the eyes of his father and the charms of Ezra Miller so he has an intrinsic handsome appeal to him. Teddy is the most ambitious character in the film, only at peace when in the presence of artistic creations yet burdened by the people around him and what they inflict on him. We gather the most about Teddy during the scenes where Jack Kilmer is engaged in reading or drawing, and you can just see his eyes light up which illuminates the underlying passion he has for creativity. And when he speaks, his tone of voice easily conveys a sense of just how confused he is by the weird world around him. Jack Kilmer captures Teddy inside and out, adding another promising talent to the cast.Since James Franco is a currently very popular actor in mainstream circles and maintains an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, his role in a small budget arthouse piece like Palo Alto is very much against type. Since he wrote the collection of short stories that the film is based on it is clearly a very personal piece to him, and he dedicates himself to capturing Mr. B with the utmost tenacity. James Franco does his part to ensure that the spirit of his material is brought to life through his talents as an actor, and it is a refreshing reminder of his talents in simpler dramatic material.Nat Wolff also delivers a powerful supporting effort, transcending the subtle dramatic nature of the film with a restrained yet energetic over-the-top nature to convey someone who is truly lost in his search for existence.So though Palo Alto is slow and rather familiar, the beautiful subtlety in its themes and acting combined with a strong script and brilliant sense of style make it the best Coppola film in years.

Rachel R (us) wrote: This is a very interesting film! The middle picks up to provide useful information and ideas on how to help the general public change a broken system. It was shocking to see the economic graphs presented with detailed information of who is spending what, especially since I have only seen pieces of the puzzle in the past. I definitely need to see this again with a paper and pen, so I can write down the names and website addresses of parties out there that are providing solutions to the pressing problems in our government's structure.

Sean D (us) wrote: Hit this film for five minutes and immediately run away. Our main actress looks enticing in the first few minutes of the film. Jean shorts and boots forever work. Anyway, going past my superficial crap, the film is compete rubbish. Just complete crap. This random elementary school teacher gets run over accidentally by this girl, who I don't think ran him over because of her being under the influence of alcohol, but anyway he's convinced. I don't know what the deal was back at her house when she realizes he is alive, so she tries to kill him. Then bury him, apparently alive. He apparently has amazing GPS skills and the people of this town are the most oblivious people in the world because this guy eventually makes it back to her house somehow, limping and half dead the whole time. I guess she doesn't bother to lock anything. Because everytime she freaking leaves, she keeps everything open. I'm guessing the same goes for her being at home. She doesn't care either way. Anyway, he has issues and now it becomes a torture slasher horror, dude goes psycho and kills people including his wife. Apparently, all this keeps happening because he didn't take his meds. So this dude is supposed to be the world's greatest teacher, but he is too busy trying to kill everyone. This plot is so bad. The characters are so meaningless including her absolutely empty boyfriend of 2 years. Pass, pass, pass.

Ryan V (nl) wrote: Machete (Danny Trejo) is a federal officer who is betrayed by a drug dealer (Steven Seagal) who also murders his family. This sends Machete knife-first into an elaborate conspiracy involving a xenophobic US state senator (Robert DeNiro), a conflicted ICE agent (Jessica Alba), a vigilante who kills illegal immigrants (Don Johnson), a "reformed" priest (Cheech Marin), an amateur porn star (Lindsey Lohan), a scummy concierge (Jeff Fahey), and an underground rebel with a heart of gold (Michelle Rodriguez). Co-writer/director Robert Rodriguez stuffs all 109 minutes of Machete with over-the-top violence and ham-fisted political satire. This film is a hot mess, but it's still a damn fun exploitation movie.

Laura S (mx) wrote: Great performances , Ryan G plays a vulnerable believable character I did feel slightly disappointed at the abrupt ending . However a good film

Alanna R (it) wrote: well...that's 83 minutes I'll never get back.

Shane J (ca) wrote: An absolute turd of a sequel which ignores the previous 2. Some of the worst acting ever put on screen and the most annoying bloke as a lead (i guess) ive ever seen. no wonder everyone takes the piss out of him the entire film he fricking deserves it, any more of him and i may have had to star killing everyone!!the only bonus from this film is the ok kills and the return of angela from the 1st film.the lame twist at the end was pitiful.

Graham B (br) wrote: Beautifully filmed, but requires patience. Those who possess it will be rewarded.

Sarah Q (it) wrote: its one of those movies that taps into feelings/thoughts you never overtly acknowledge. i loved it

Kate M (br) wrote: This Movies looks funny

Jay B (de) wrote: Still fun enough for a visit.

Robert I (ru) wrote: I guess I just don't get this material. "Here and Now" pales in comparison to Eddie Murphy's "Raw". Pryor is lively, but I didn't find his set to be that funny.

Marischa B (mx) wrote: Our two heroes belong to an "Institution existing many generations" (oh boy) as the "filmmakers" put it.Apparently some other guys from another "institution" for some reason don't really like our heroes.But instead of just shooting and being done with them they decide to fight them in endless lame martial arts battles in always the same abandoned, derelict buildings.There is really not much else going on.I guess the filmmakers have been let out their "institution" way too early or they were treated with the wrong meds. (I call them "filmmakers" but they are not really filmmakers.) Do I really have to mention that the actors suck as much as the script, the cinematography (if you really want to call it that) and the "directing"? If you really want to waste your time watching some dorks beating up other dorks then you'd better also check into some kind of "institution existing for many generations".But make sure they don't let you out early like all the zero talent guys who have made this crap.Where are Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan when you need them? Oh crap.

Jonathan G (gb) wrote: Watchable but not a patch on the original, but how could it be? Mel Gibson is terrific but as always with a Hollywood film, you know who the main bad guys are and the plot twist betrayals just by who they cast in those parts.What I call the 'Jerome Krabb manouvre'. The action is solid, but a tad silly at times... there is some nice understated drama which is then unbalanced by some obvious bits. Plus the film has my pet hate of inadvertently finishing with ghosts and proof of the afterlife... which just doesn't fit/work with what the content of the film is. Ahh well... passed the time enjoyably enough but not enough to recommend or watch again.